自然灾害高风险区农户不迁移意愿影响因素与形成路径

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.11.0497

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为探究自然灾害高风险区农户不迁移意愿的形成路径,制定更有效的灾害移民政策,基于计划行为理论,从行为态度、主观规范和知觉行为控制3个维度,识别家庭收入、农业依赖、灾害风险感知、政策满意度和主观规范5个指标作为前因条件变量;基于汶川县原草坡乡155个农户的问卷调查数据,使用模糊集定性比较分析法(fsQCA)分析农户不迁移意愿的影响因素和组态路径。结果表明:家庭收入、农业依赖、灾害风险感知、政策满意度和主观规范均不能单独构成不迁移意愿的必要条件,引发农户不迁移意愿的路径有3条,分别为风险漠视型、生计束缚型与富而拒迁型。风险漠视型核心条件包括低灾害风险感知和低主观规范;生计束缚型核心条件包括高农业依赖、低家庭收入和低主观规范;富而拒迁型核心条件包括高家庭收入、低政策满意度和低主观规范。

关键词: 自然灾害, 不迁移意愿, 风险感知, 避险搬迁, 模糊集定性比较分析(fsQCA)

Abstract:

In order to explore the formation paths of farmers' non-migration intention in high-risk areas of natural disasters and formulate more effective resettlement policies, five indicators across three dimensions—behavioral attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control—were extracted as antecedent conditions based on the theory of planned behavior. Using questionnaire survey data from 155 farmers in former Caopo township, Sichuan province, a fsQCA was employed to investigate the determinants for farmers' non-migration intention. The results show that household income, agricultural dependence, risk perception, policy satisfaction and subjective norms cannot individually constitute the necessary conditions for non-migration intention. There are three main paths leading to high non-migration intention. The first is "risk indifference", characterized by low risk perception and weak subjective norms. The second is "livelihood constraint", characterized by high agricultural dependence, low household income, and weak subjective norms. The third is "economically secure but unwilling", characterized by high household income, low policy satisfaction, and weak subjective norms.

Key words: natural disasters, non-migration intention, risk perception, preventive resettlement, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)

中图分类号:

X915.5

陈勇, 张翼. 自然灾害高风险区农户不迁移意愿影响因素与形成路径[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(11): 9-15.

CHEN Yong, ZHANG Yi. Determinants and formation path of farmers' non-migration intention in high-risk areas of natural disasters[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(11): 9-15.

图/表 6

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 32

[1]	陈勇. 山地灾害避险搬迁安置研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2023:1-12.
[2]	NASER M M, MALLICK B, PRIODARSHINI R, et al. Policy challenges and responses to environmental non-migration[J]. npj Climate Action, 2023,2:DOI:10.1038/s44168-023-00033-w.
[3]	IOM. World migration report 2018[R/OL].(2017-11-15). https://www.unpopulation.org/system/files/pdf/wmr_2018_en.pdf.
[4]	WILLIAMS A M, BALÁŽ V. Migration, risk, and uncertainty: theoretical perspectives[J]. Population, Space and Place, 2012, 18(2): 167-180. doi: 10.1002/psp.v18.2
[5]	MALLICK B, ROGERS K G, SULTANA Z. In harm's way: non-migration decisions of people at risk of slow-onset coastal hazards in Bangladesh[J]. Ambio, 2022, 51(1):114-134. doi: 10.1007/s13280-021-01552-8
[6]	SCHEWEL K. Understanding immobility: moving beyond the mobility bias in migration studies[J]. International Migration Review, 2020, 54(2):328-355. doi: 10.1177/0197918319831952
[7]	BALGAH R A, KIMENGSI J N. A review of drivers of environmental non-migration decisions in Africa[J]. Regional Environmental Change, 2022, 22:DOI: 10.1007/s10113-022-01970-8.
[8]	BLACK R, COLLYER M. Humanitarian crises and migration[M]. London: Routledge, 2014: 287-305.
[9]	ADAMS H. Why populations persist: mobility, place attachment and climate change[J]. Population Environment, 2016, 37: 429-448. doi: 10.1007/s11111-015-0246-3
[10]	MALLICK B, SULTANA Z, BENNETT C M. How do sustainable livelihoods influence environmental (non-)migration aspirations?[J]. Applied Geography, 2020, 124:DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102328.
[11]	KELMAN I, ORLOWSKA J, UPADHYAY H, et al. Does climate change influence people's migration decisions in Maldives?[J]. Climate Change, 2019, 153:285-299.
[12]	SUN Yuan, MALLICK B, BAYRAK M M. "No fish-no fishermen": staying as a voluntary choice despite environmental risks[J]. Local Environment, 2024, 29(11):1470-1489. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2024.2394667
[13]	杜运周, 贾良定. 组态视角与定性比较分析(QCA):管理学研究的一条新道路[J]. 管理世界, 2017(6):155-167.
[14]	尚志海, 刘希林. 自然灾害生态环境风险及其评价:以汶川地震极重灾区次生泥石流灾害为例[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(9):3-8.
	SHANG Zhihai, LIU Xilin. Assessment on eco-environmental risk and losses for natural disasters: with the disaster of debris flow induced by "5·12" Wenchuan Earthquake as an example[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2010, 20(9):3-8.
[15]	AJZEN I. The theory of planned behavior[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Process, 1991, 50(2): 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
[16]	WANG Zhi, MA Ting, ZHU Hao, et al. Exploring local residents' response to ecological resettlement policy: a TPB-based study in Zhalong national nature reserve[J]. World Development Sustainability, 2025, 7:DOI: 10.1016/j.wds.2025.100246.
[17]	SLOVIC P. Perception of risk[J]. Science, 1987, 236(4799): 280-285. doi: 10.1126/science.3563507 pmid: 3563507
[18]	陈勇. 对灾害与移民问题的初步探讨[J]. 灾害学, 2009, 24(2):138-144.
	CHEN Yong. A preliminary study of hazard-induced migration[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2009, 24(2):138-144.
[19]	陈勇, 李青雪, 曹杨, 等. 山区农户双重风险感知对搬迁意愿和搬迁行为的影响:基于汶川县原草坡乡避灾移民分析[J]. 地理科学, 2020, 40(12): 2085-2093. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2020.12.015
	CHEN Yong, LI Qingxue, CAO Yang, et al. Impact of farmers' dual risk perceptions on resettlement intentions and behaviors: a case study of former Caopo township in southwestern China[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2020, 40(12):2085-2093. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2020.12.015
[20]	李培林. 巨变:村落的终结:都市里的村庄研究[J]. 中国社会科学, 2002(1):168-179,209.
	LI Peilin. Tremendous changes: the end of villages:a study of villages in the center of Guangzhou city[J]. Social Sciences in China, 2002(1):168-179,209.
[21]	时鹏, 余劲. 易地扶贫搬迁农户意愿及影响因素研究:一个基于计划行为理论的解释架构[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2019, 33(1):38-43.
	SHI Peng, YU Jing. Research on the household willingness of poverty alleviation relocation and its affecting factors[J]. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2019, 33(1):38-43.
[22]	周翼虎, 陈会广, 方婷婷. 乡村振兴背景下农民工迁移决策机理研究[J]. 中国农业资源与区划, 2023, 44(10):78-86.
	ZHOU Yihu, CHEN Huiguang, FANG Tingting. Research on the mechanism of migrant workers' transfer decision under the background of rural revitalization[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, 2023, 44(10):78-86.
[23]	ELLIOTT J R, PAIS J. When nature pushes back: environmental impact and the spatial redistribution of socially vulnerable populations[J]. Social Science Quarterly, 2010, 91(5):1187-1202. pmid: 21125761
[24]	RAKER E J. Natural hazards, disasters, and demographic change: the case of severe tornadoes in the United States, 1980-2010[J]. Demography, 2020, 57(2):653-674. doi: 10.1007/s13524-020-00862-y
[25]	孔娜娜, 王晓研. 基于CiteSpace的国外韧性社区研究热点及前沿分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(8):173-181. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.08.0265
	KONG Na'na, WANG Xiaoyan. Research hotspots and frontiers of foreign resilient community based on CiteSpace[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(8):173-181. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.08.0265
[26]	聂鑫, 汪晗, 郭洁雯, 等. 微观福利视角下的库区移民搬迁意愿调查[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 2010, 20(9):159-164.
	NIE Xin, WANG Han, GUO Jiewen, et al. The investigation of reservoir resettlement's relocation will from microeconomic welfare way[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2010, 20(9):159-164.
[27]	PAPPAS I O, WOODSIDE A G. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2021, 58: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310.
[28]	RAGIN C C. Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008: 190-212.
[29]	GRECKHAMER T, FURNARI S, FISS P C, et al. Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: best practices in strategy and organization research[J]. Strategic Organization, 2018, 16(4): 482-495. doi: 10.1177/1476127018786487
[30]	陈勇. 西部山区农村灾害移民研究[M]. 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2015:62-67.
	CHEN Yong. Disaster-related migration in mountain areas of Western China[M]. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2015:62-67.
[31]	DEMUTH J L, REBECCA E M, JEFFREY K L, et al. The effects of past hurricane experiences on evacuation intentions through risk perception and efficacy beliefs: a mediation analysis[J]. Weather, Climate, and Society, 2016, 8(4):327-344. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-15-0074.1
[32]	FARBOTKO C, DUN O, THORNTON F, et al. Relocation planning must address voluntary immobility[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2020, 10(8):702-704. doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0829-6

变量	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值
留居意愿	3.355	1.215	1	5
农业依赖	0.558	0.343	0	1
家庭收入/元	13 409.49	11 476.48	1 208	75 690
政策满意度	3.581	1.012	1	5
灾害风险感知	3.419	1.221	1	5
主观规范	2.287	1.181	1	5

变量	完全隶属	交叉点	完全不隶属
留居意愿	4	3	2
农业依赖	0.989	0.588	0.027
家庭收入/元	33 230	10 465	3 095.067
政策满意度	5	4	1
灾害风险感知	5	4	1
主观规范	4	2	1

搬迁意愿	频数	占比/%
很支持	10	6.45
支持	41	26.45
无所谓	13	8.39
反对	66	42.58
坚决反对	25	16.13
总和	155	100

前因变量	高留居意愿		低留居意愿
前因变量	一致性	覆盖度	一致性	覆盖度
农业依赖	0.594	0.717	0.508	0.374
~农业依赖	0.481	0.616	0.615	0.481
家庭收入	0.538	0.725	0.472	0.388
~家庭收入	0.546	0.629	0.666	0.468
政策满意度	0.491	0.669	0.566	0.471
~政策满意度	0.612	0.698	0.602	0.419
灾害风险感知	0.478	0.664	0.550	0.467
~灾害风险感知	0.616	0.692	0.604	0.414
主观规范	0.443	0.558	0.712	0.548
~主观规范	0.641	0.785	0.426	0.318

条件变量	S1	S2	S3
农业依赖	∅	●	—
家庭收入	—	⊗	●
政策满意度	●	—	⊗
灾害风险感知	⊗	—	●
主观规范	⊗	⊗	⊗
一致性	0.817	0.815	0.844
原始覆盖度	0.447	0.322	0.351
唯一覆盖度	0.082	0.058	0.027
总体一致性	0.810
总体覆盖度	0.557